Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple’s Stock

| Editorial

In an emotional response to the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), Apple CEO Tim Cook soundly rejected the politics of the group and suggested it stop investing in Apple if it doesn't like his approach to sustainability and other issues.

Apple CEO Tim Cook

Apple CEO Tim Cook

Mr. Cook's comments came during the question and answer session of Apple's annual shareholder meeting, which the NCPPR attended as shareholder. The self-described conservative think tank was pushing a shareholder proposal that would have required Apple to disclose the costs of its sustainability programs and to be more transparent about its participation in "certain trade associations and business organizations promoting the amorphous concept of environmental sustainability."

As I covered in depth yesterday, the proposal was politically-based, and rooted in the premise that humanity plays no role in climate change. Other language in the proposal advanced the idea that profits should be the only thing corporations consider.

That shareholder proposal was rejected by Apple's shareholders, receiving just 2.95 percent of the vote. During the question and answer session, however, the NCPPR representative asked Mr. Cook two questions, both of which were in line with the principles espoused in the group's proposal.

The first question challenged an assertion from Mr. Cook that Apple's sustainability programs and goals—Apple plans on having 100 percent of its power come from green sources—are good for the bottom line. The representative asked Mr. Cook if that was the case only because of government subsidies on green energy.

Mr. Cook didn't directly answer that question, but instead focused on the second question: the NCPPR representative asked Mr. Cook to commit right then and there to doing only those things that were profitable.

What ensued was the only time I can recall seeing Tim Cook angry, and he categorically rejected the worldview behind the NCPPR's advocacy. He said that there are many things Apple does because they are right and just, and that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issues.

"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI." He said that the same thing about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader.

As evidenced by the use of "bloody" in his response—the closest thing to public profanity I've ever seen from Mr. Cook–it was clear that he was quite angry. His body language changed, his face contracted, and he spoke in rapid fire sentences compared to the usual metered and controlled way he speaks.

He didn't stop there, however, as he looked directly at the NCPPR representative and said, "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock."

To me, it was a clear rejection of the groups politics, especially the anything-for-the-sake-of-profits mentality the NCPPR was asking him to embrace. It was also an unequivocal message that Apple would continue to invest in sustainable energy and related areas.

[Update: The last paragraph originally said that Mr. Cook rejected the climate change denial of the group. That was intended as a line item about the group, which Mr. Cook was categorically rejecting, but the specifics of his answer weren't focused on that aspect of either their question or overall message. I clarified it accordingly.]

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

Comments

Lee Dronick

Good job Tim!

Ref Librarian

Excellent response!

geoduck

Good for you. Give ‘em hell Tim.

BurmaYank

I’d love to see a video of that.

MacDaddy

Way to go Tim! Reason #845 why I love owning Apple products and stock.

Rogifan 1

Tim used the word bloody? Jony’s accent must be rubbing off on him.

gnasher729

Some pleasant news in the evening. Thank you, Tim Cook.

Paul Hurley

I am a proud Apple shareholder - kudos to Tim Cook for knowing what a responsible corporation should be doing.

NewRider

That was very cool Tim. Loved the restraint and especially this quote: “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.”
Right on Tim, another reason I love Apple.  Thank You

John F. Braun

Who invited the Ferengi to the shareholder meeting?

Michael Kobb

Well done.  As a shareholder, customer and former employee, I wholeheartedly support Mr. Cook in this position.  Outstanding.

Michael W. Perry

This zeal for global warming, now known by the more ambiguous ‘climate change’ is absolutely delightful! I love to watch and hear it.

One of the unique characteristics of the twentieth century was that it was filled with a host of panics that were consider scientific. In fact, during each panic’s heyday there was almost no dissent from its dogmas from anyone but religious conservatives.

Eugenics, the idea that society needs to control who does and does not have children, is a good example. In 1912, the NY Times gushed that it was a “wonderful new science.” Read from that era and you’ll discover that even those within the establishment who agreed but wanted be careful about the implementation, drew fire. It was a kind of secular religion filled with true believers. When G. K. Chesterton, a Catholic writer, published a book against eugenics, he had to title it “Eugenics and Other Evils” because a neutral-sounding title would have been assumed to be for it.

I’ll list just the more important of them. Virtually all are rooted either in Malthus or Darwin. Eugenics was Darwinian, although it sometimes wore a Malthusian, population control mask. Global warming is Malthusian, with the ‘too many’ simply changed from people to cars.

* Yellow Peril
* Race Suicide
* Eugenics
* Birth control (negative eugenics only)
* Immigration restriction
* Command economies, either communist or fascist (communism rejected Malthus, fascism made it a core principle)
* Population explosion
* Resource depletion
* Peak Oil
* Global warming morphed into climate change.

(I describe the first five in my Pivot of Civilization in Historical Perspective, available free at Google Books.)

None of their dire predictions have proved true. Not one. For instance, all those immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe that the eugenists and birth controllers thought feeble-minded and a threat to our society, turned out to be Jews and Italians who’ve done exceptionally well.

Finally, keep in mind that none of those other hysterias, and I’ve lived through several of them myself, rose to the level of attention that global warming has gotten. They surfaced and either achieved their agendas (the population explosion wanted abortion legalized) or didn’t and faded away with the public retaining only fleeting memories.

There’s simply no way global warming/climate change will end gracefully. It’s fall will be all too visible. it’s fall will be most embarrassing for its true believers, while the ‘rest of us’ will be absolutely delighted to rub it in.

Go ahead, believe in global warming/climate change. You just in mind that in a decade or so, it’d become the equivalent of believing in a flat earth.

mattand

A right-wing conspiracy theorist who manages to slam science while promoting his own book?

If I knew we were going to play Fox News Bingo, I’d have brought my custom made card marker.

kyle dougan

zing!

Scott Jordan

NCPPR appears to be a shareholder organization that demands companies focus entirely on generating short-term profits.

Okay, I can put my MBA’s hat on and see both sides.

And here’s where I come down: The accessibility-for-blind-users example is an excellent one, and props to Cook for choosing it.  Clearly, the effort that goes into making an iDevice or Mac accessible to such a small portion of the population has got to outweigh the measurable return in terms of direct profitability.  But that’s the problem with taking a narrow accountant’s view of how business is done.  Companies don’t sell products just because of advertising or features; image and corporate conduct do matter, and in Apple’s case they matter quite a lot.  It’s just deucedly difficult to assign an ROI to such things.  So the metric becomes “do the right thing.” 

Neither the MBA nor the human in me has a problem with that.  Even the billions Apple spends on green energy that some on this thread disagree-with has great benefit in terms of corporate image and brand admiration.

The more I re-read Cook’s put-down of NCPPR, the more impressed I am.

ibuck

I also applaud Apple for their business practices—mostly (I still wish they wouldrev their products more frequently and include key new features, like security, across more of their product line).

I suspect NCPPR got into AAPL stock and launched a shareholder proposal mostly to push their agenda, rather than to expect Apple to change their stripes. While their worldview is repugnant to those who support Apple and their method of business, I’m apprehensive about how far such people will go to achieve their goals, and how 99% (or perhaps the lowest 40% or so) will respond if they do.  We already have the Citizens United ruling and other judicial malfeasance, voting obstruction, NAFTA (and potentially TPP), massive off-shoring of jobs, cutting unemployment benefits, and other privations perpetrated by those with this viewpoint. And apparent Perkins-like entitlement. But the backlash has also begun with taunts and assaults on people wearing Google glass or waiting to ride special silicon valley buses, etc. in San Francisco.

Where will it lead?  Historically, the moneyed elite have used the police to enforce “public order,” as they view it. But this group has also assaulted the pensions and benefits of police and other public servants. Will the police back the elites, or will they pull back and support the people, as happened recently with in other parts of the globe? What remedy will the angry, less fortunate people apply to those who cause much of the privation and injury to the world just to earn a few more bucks? Will it be like 1789 France, or Nicolae Ceaușescu’s 1989 Romania? Or could it be like Nelson Mandela’s South Africa in the 1990’s?

Saint Stryfe

It’s bloody stupid because these idiots can’t see past their nose.

Take the blind access. Lots of people use the blind access tools for things not related to vision impairment. Same thing for screen reading.

And there’s no negative to environmental benefits. If it doesn’t truly save much, it’s good PR. if it does, then good!

it’s just a right-wing publicity group jumping off the deep end.

Dan Redwing Hawk

Hmmmm…

Michael W Perry. 

nice Self Promotion.

“Ignore Member”- Clicked.

Lee Dronick

Even if climate c.hange is not real, just part of a cycle, that is not a good reason for rejecting energy efficiency, less pollution, and all of that green stuff.

Lee Dronick

They are free enterprisers http://youtu.be/XOsHNpQZERg

George Kafantaris

“We do a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive. We want to leave the world better than we found it.”
If don’t like it, “get out of the stock.”
Steve Jobs could have said it no better.

Chris Olbekson

Good job Apple.  Makes me happy that I buy products from a company that takes a stand.

polyGeek

I detest Apple with a seething white hot passion. But now it’s more like a soothing white hot passion. Very happy to see a CEO, any CEO, take a stand for something more than the bottom line.

hi-endian

Frankly, even if we wanted to look at this from a purely mercenary viewpoint, I’m not sure how raping the environment is helpful to Apple’s image.

Katlyn Sampson

It’s clear that Cook has embarked upon a radical left agenda with shareholders’ money. From gay activism to climate change power-grabs, he wants to be in the business of politics rather than just making money. That’s great, but if I’m a shareholder who doesn’t want to be handing over money for such purposes, I’d take his suggestion seriously and sell. The fact that he doesn’t voluntarily disclose the costs involved speaks volumes. No wonder Apple has been all talk and no meat since he took over. The slide will continue until Cook is gone, and maybe even after he’s gone if this damage gets much worse.

PRAMZapper

Michael W. Perry:

Thank you so much for bringing up your book. Now it’s fair game.

Your book’s reviews:

1/5 Stars:
This book is awful. I am writing a thesis on Margaret Sanger and wasted my time today. I cannot believe that a university library would actually purchase this book as it’s the most unacademic piece on Sanger I’ve read. On the first page Perry implies that Planned Parenthood promotes teen promiscuity to make profit when teens need to go back for birth control and abortions. I don’t have time to write a longer review, but just look at the other reviews! Half of them are by the author himself (which is pathetic, by the way). If you take out those reviews, there is no way this book would have 3.5 star rating.

1/5 stars:
I not only want my money back, I want the author to pay me for the time I spent reading this piece of trash. If you are one of the ten people in the world who believes that birth control pills should be outlawed, this book is for you. But if you were born with a brain, then don’t waste your money on this book.


1/5 stars:
If you want to read Margaret Sanger’s book, read Margaret Sanger’s Pivot of Civilization, as published by Humanity Press or as available on-line, not this chopped up attack on her book by someone with a major agenda.

1/5 stars:
In Perry’s view Sanger’s “real agenda was: “Coercion,” which he writes is “one step short of compulsion,” and “means that you narrow someone’s choices, so those targeted feel that they have only one option—not having a child.” (p. 12). With this purpose, Perry includes articles designed to support his very arguable thesis, and then includes a transcription of Sanger’s Pivot of Civilization. And even this is not free of Perry’s intrusiveness, as he adds his own opinion (often without any substantiating evidence) on what Sanger meant at every key point. And in case the reader might overlook what he has decided are the most damning sentences, he puts them in boldface.

5/5 stars:
(user’s first review on amazon)

5/5 stars:
(username “A Customer”, no other reviews)


Your copy pasta above and snippets of your “book”, not to mention your self-reviews on Amazon, are nothing more than stringing one logical fallacy after another, until the reader is so exhausted of asking themselves “wtf?”, you claim you have made some valid case.

I would like however to read any book you may have written about the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and how you have managed to stumble your way through life so far. That would be fascinating.

PRAMZapper

Katlyn Sampson:

The fact you consider “gay rights” to be the “radical Left” tells us a lot about you.

If you own APPL, go ahead and get rid of it, which makes it a little bit easier for someone else to buy it.

Go on now, call your broker.

RonMacGuy

Let us not forget Apple bringing Mac assembly back to the US (New Mac Pro). Not focused on profit, but the right thing for Apple to do. Great job, Tim!!

mike 65

@Katlyn
Seems you are against 97% of Shareholders, as only 2.95% voted in favor of the NCPPR proposal. Profits are obviously important, but they are not everything. Please close the door when you leave the stock.

jameskatt

Tim Cook speaks softly and carries a BIG STICK!
You go, Tim!

NCPPR should get out of Apple Stock.

@polyGeek:  the only reason to hate Apple is because you are envious.

Apple is about doing the best thing.

Neil Anderson

Integrity ... a new way of doing business.

aardman

It really must grate on the right wingers’ Ayn Randian sensibilities that the most admired, most successful company in the world does not prostrate itself on the altar of pure mercenary profit.

Asaf Be

Start paying taxes like the rest of us and give your Chinese manufacturing workers basic human work environment - then I’ll believe you when you talk about the greater good.

Hardik Panjwani

@ aardman: You need to read Ayn Rand more closely. The primary thurst in Rand’s book is not mercenary profit,  it is the idea that a person or an institution must be true to itself and the rest will follow.

You can clearly see Apple following this philosophy to spectacular success. Appropriation of Rand by the Right is one of Left’s greatest losses.

Kudos to Tim, proud to be an Apple customer.

nikster

Makes me happy he got angry with the idiots. Let’s not mince words, and let’s call a spade a spade.
This think tank isn’t worth the label, it’s just a right wing propaganda machine, ill-conceived at that.

@Michael W. Perry it’s quite the achievement to put so much crap in so few paragraphs.

Ayn Rand - misguided prophet for misguided people? The one-eyed leading the blind.

Comment Zilla

Michael W. Perry @

“One of the unique characteristics of the twentieth century was that it was filled with a host of panics that were consider scientific. In fact, during each panic’s heyday there was almost no dissent from its dogmas from anyone but religious conservatives…. Go ahead, believe in global warming/climate change. You just in mind that in a decade or so, it’d become the equivalent of believing in a flat earth.”

We humans were the cause of ozone destruction and we as a planet outlawed CFCs and saved the planet. Thus proving humans can affect the planet’s environment and fix it when our actions have hurt it.

gnasher729

Hardik: Don’t tell anyone to read Ayn Rand more closely. Tell them to avoid her. Wasted two or three hours on “The Anthem” which was about the most idiotic claptrap that I’ve ever read. Totally unbelievable scenarios, totally unbelievable persons, actions and motivations, an obvious world view that she is pushing with all the persons acting with no rational reason except to support her world view. Total rubbish.

Ian Davies

@Katlyn Sampson

Mislabelling “equality” as “activism” betrays your disingenuous nature.

Misrepresenting a sustainable energy policy and ethically responsible business practises as a “radical left agenda” betrays your ignorance.

I suggest you go and invest in a morally bankrupt corporation that doesn’t give a [expletive deleted] about any of those things. There are plenty to choose from.

skipaq

Wow! This article turned the heat up.

keath66

> Who invited the Ferengi to the shareholder meeting?

I believe it’s pronounced Federighi.

DLong

I consider myself a common sense conservative.

When I was in high school I had a teacher who said Global warming will take over by year 2000.  We were all instructed to write an essay on what it’ll be like in 2000.  I even remember writing that we’ll be all walking around in space suits because of global warming.

Today, we are no where near there, and in fact I have come to the conclusion that the earth has been here for 4.5 BILLION years, and it has and will aways WILL change not matter what.  You think our environment has been like it is today?  you think in 1000 years, we’d even ben worried about Global warming?  perhaps the next generation will be more concerned about Astroids hitting earth?  Who knows, but I can guarantee you, the earth will be here in some form or another, and the human species will either be gone or evolved to another form.  We have history to prove that.

Now that Apple has a good size wallet, I think they are smart to invest in “renewable energy”.  Quite frankly, if Apple would not have been successful in their product lines, they would not be able to invest in these things!  So yes, now they don’t care (as much) about the Bottom line now, but I bet they would be if they were a struggling company.

I am about to pay off my home soon and am looking to save the other “green” .  I’m looking to invest in solar panels for my home so that I don’t have to pay the bloody Electric company. 

Thanks.

xmattingly

Ok, so Tim Cook was prodded to respond directly to a call for Apple to give up their business ethics purely for a profit motive, which I think he responded very admirably to. Good stuff, and it shows that there are MANY more reasons why Cook is heading the most profitable company on the planet than merely being a brilliant operations guy.

Still, I would have liked to have heard Cook answer directly whether or not Apple would be willing to pursue sustainability programs WITHOUT taking government subsidies. That’s a more “Ayn Rand-ian” move than aardman will ever be able to wrap his brain around.

John Dingler, artist

Yeah baby! Finally, some Neopolitan-like passion worthy of a dialogue written for one of its “sceneggiatas.” Cook spoke like Steve Jobs with this super awesome zinger. I have gotten tired of his droning on like a clinical bean counting bookkeeping analyst in all of his previous public statements.

John Dingler, artist

To Katlyn Sampson,
You say that “The fact that he doesn’t voluntarily disclose the costs involved speaks volumes.” yet you don’t say how many volumes, their titles, nor quote from any of them, not one word.

This indicates to me that you expect responders to guess what your pro forma comment means so that, should they guess wrong, you can issue another Rightwing rant at them to validate your Rightwing credentials to Savage, Breitbart and Hannity, you know, like their sycophant.

Your apparent call for pure profit makes you sound like an Ayn Randian who, by the way, died a Socialist sucking off of the state as she lay sick in her death bed.

xmattingly

John Dingleberry, political diatribe hate monger.

Steven Graff

Another Koch backed organization that cares not what Apple’s profits are, but only of the fossil fuel sector’s. Good on you Mr. Cook and the other 96.1% of Apple shareholders!  That the 2.9% of NCPPR supporters cannot see beyond the next quarter let alone quarter century is evidence they should not be in Apple stock.

Steven Graff

sorry 97.1%

Lee Dronick

  Start paying taxes like the rest of us and give your Chinese manufacturing workers basic human work environment - then I’ll believe you when you talk about the greater good.

You can start believing them now, you could have done it before.

Apple is one of the highest corporate taxpayers, 1 out of every 40 dollars collected by the IRS comes from Apple. http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/04/23/which-corporations-pay-the-most-taxes/

Apple is the leader is making Chinese owned factories pay fair wages and have safe working conditions. Take your issue up other businesses.

mrmwebmax

+

As stated in another thread, regardless of whether or not climate change is a result of fossil fuels, the use of fossil fuels has so many other negatives—pollution, acid rain, the Gulf spill, the town in Canada wiped off the map from the oil train disaster, limited supply, too much dependence on the Middle East—that green technology/sustainable energy is a no-brainer. Look at what Tesla wants to do with its new battery factory, for instance:

www.wired.com/business/2014/02/teslas-giant-battery-factory-save-apple

If it can be done, why not?

As for only caring about the bottom line: That was never Apple, and certainly not Apple under Steve Jobs:

“When you’re a carpenter making a beautiful chest of drawers, you’re not going to use a piece of plywood on the back, even though it faces the wall and nobody will ever see it. You’ll know it’s there, so you’re going to use a beautiful piece of wood on the back. For you to sleep well at night, the aesthetic, the quality, has to be carried all the way through.”

“Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn’t matter to me. Going to bed at night saying we’ve done something wonderful ... that’s what matters to me.”

“I hate it when people call themselves ‘entrepreneurs’ when what they’re really trying to do is launch a startup and then sell or go public, so they can cash in and move on.”

“I think most creative people want to express appreciation for being able to take advantage of the work that’s been done by others before us. I didn’t invent the language or mathematics I use. I make little of my own food, none of my own clothes. Everything I do depends on other members of our species and the shoulders that we stand on. And a lot of us want to contribute something back to our species and to add something to the flow.”

As for the political aspects of this thread, as someone who has read every word ever written by Ayn Rand, she was neither conservative nor liberal. She was best described as libertarian (a word she did not like, BTW), in favor of limited government, socially liberal and fiscally conservative. She wasn’t all about money, either: Read The Fountainhead, for instance, about an architect who would rather starve and be a dirt-poor laborer than compromise the integrity of his work. (Although I have yet to find proof, it would not surprise me if this is a favorite of Sir Jony Ive, as much of what he says about the integrity of design parallels the main character’s views on architecture.)

Fun fact: For those of you who actually read Atlas Shrugged, a key plot point revolves around green energy, even though it wasn’t called as such.

For gnasher79: The book is called Anthem, not “The Anthem”—and I could make a good argument that George Orwell’s 1984, written later, took at least some inspiration from it. What’s definitely true is that the make-or-break, career-defining prog-rock classis “2112” by Rush was definitely inspired by it. Ayn Rand is even acknowledged in the liner notes. Watch the VH1 Classic Album 2112/Moving Pictures episode—available on iTunes—to learn more.

skipaq

@xmattingly, Dlong nice points.

The heat continues to climb on this thread with lots of personal attacks and little in the way of reasoned argumentation. Has anyone done a detailed study on the environmental impact of these green projects? Clear cutting acres of trees is just one of the impacts of these solar farms. I have lived in places where wind farms were fought fiercely on their negative environmental impacts. Well, I guess the right wing epitaph is headed my way.

As far as the question posed to the CEO; perhaps answering it would help those few shareholders make an informed decision on selling their stock.

Polimon

Bravo Tim Cook! I’d vote for this man for President of the USA, but he’s more effective running Apple.

Guðmundur Þór Reynisson

I was fortunate enough to be in the room when Tim Coom put that [####] back in the hole he crawled out of and it was magnificent. Tim spoke with genuine passion and restrained anger.

John Dingler, artist

Seems that the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) PR person, Justin Danhof, resents Tim Cook’s MO which is continue to make products like the iPad that contribute to the greater good, and to delight people, in addition to caring only for the corporate well-being, and this is just like Steve Jobs’s MO. So Apple is my kind of company: Financially successful and uplifting. A unique company. Hoarders of wealth and their aspirants don’t understand this, wanting to destroy it in the long term as long as income can be squeezed from it in the near term.

I suppose that he thinks that today’s feisty Cook should have gone the opposite way, cowering and paying obeisance before the Randian goddess, to be concerned only by self, not for workers, not for environment, not for the long turn future of earth (within corporate limits, of course) as it travels through the cosmos.

Tutto bene, Tim Cook.

Larry Garfield

I’m not generally a fan of Apple or their products.  That said, bravo Tim and amen!

John Dingler, artist

To Guðmundur Þór Reynisson,
Hope someone recorded that part and uploaded it so that I too could take joy in seeing him do that.

PSMacintosh

Let me start by saying that, for decades, I’ve been a proponent of many types of conservationism, renewable energy, etc..
And, further, that I’m not interested in becoming a personal shooting “target” for the online Leftists here.

But it’s interesting how so many people are willing to jump on a popular bandwagon, but unwilling to question to what extent, if any, a Corporation should ever be involved in any political action (speech, donation, endorsement, etc.) that is outside of its primary business.

Is it ever the place of a Corporation (or Union for that matter) to be engaged in politics? 
(It’s so commonplace that most people just assume it’s correct.)

Whose views get to be promulgated (at the expense of other’s views)—the CEO’s, the Board’s, the majority of employees’, the majority of stockholders’. 
How do these views get measured (if its representative of a “group”)?
What are the boundaries of proper political action? 
What are the criteria is be applied?

If it’s the proper business of a Corporation to take its assets and profits and spend them to further the political viewpoints and causes of some person (with sufficient power and control) within that Corporation, isn’t this person diverting the Corporation’s assets to spend on their own personal agenda, at the expense of other’s interests in those assets?

Would you be OK with a Corporation taking strong political actions if those actions were in DISAGREEMENT with your own views and positions?
How about a Corporation supporting:
white supremacy?
international slavery? 
only hiring those with a certain religious affiliation? 
only hiring those with a certain language?
age discrimination?
Pro-Life?
male-female marriage?
banning “x”?  (facial hair)
requiring “x”?

Oh, it’s OK for a Corporation to be involved in politics and fund the heck out of political issues (beyond its basic business issues) AS LONG AS THEY AGREE WITH YOUR VIEWS? 
That’s your criteria?

John Dingler, artist

To PSMacintosh,
You are equating your concern for white supremacy with Apple’s concern for environment. You are done, dude.

Optional Option Optional

Apple have always been bit of an evil-empire (Albeit one with nice and good shiny toys), but Tims gone up considerably in my estimation with this.

Good work Tim. No point being the biggest shark in the pool, if the pool has been been poluted and killing all the fish.

skipaq

There is much to be gained from the info Apple has on its’ efforts thus far. What are the energy costs for facility ‘x’ from the traditional power grid? What are the costs of installation, operation, maintenance and other things of the solar farm for that facility? What are the environmental trade offs? Apple has real world data on this and other info. They should care about the ROI for lots of reasons. One reason is that making such projects at least cost neutral will encourage others without a hundred billion dollars lying around to invest in solar. That is not a political point. It is a business matter. If their solar farm was cost effective that would be good news they would likely tout. If it is a net loss the info they have is still of value. Not saying anything about this doesn’t help the cause of solar power.

Jim_Weil

While not a strong fan of Tim Cooke, I have to give him a standing ovation for this one.

Comment Zilla

Ayn Rand was an atheist.

That’s a conservative value, right?

“She later recalled that, while in high school, she determined that she was an atheist and that she valued reason above any other human virtue. “

Ayn Rand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

Jeremy Eaton

“unequivocal message that Apple would continue to invest in sustainable energy and related areas.”... And that I will continue to own a Mac computer.

Rich Rudnick

PSMacintosh, the supreme court has ruled recently (see Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission) that corporations are ‘people’ for free speech purposes and can spend as much money from the corporate accounts on political activism as they choose.

The Leftist position is actually the one you espouse.

Chris Grayson

Good corporate conscience is good ROI.

In a study released in May 2013, MillwardBrown estimated Apple’s Brand Equity to worth $185B, at a time when their total market capitalization was $417B. Put another way, more than 40% of Apple’s market value can be attributed to the value of their brand’s image.

Taking measures for short term ROI, that destroy hard earned brand equity would devastate Apple’s stock price. These representatives from The National Center for Public Policy Research are the worst kind of clueless Bozos.

ebudae2000

@Michael W. Perry: You list a bunch of ‘crises’ that did not have the expected outcome yet you fail to distinguish between those whose outcomes were thankfully avoided because of increased awareness, those whose worst outcomes may still come in the future and those that were exaggerated. We have evidence for global warming. We have rising sea levels. We have melting ice caps and glaciers. We have a global temperature average that is rising. What people fail to understand is that climate change, in fact many of these crises, does not mean everyday will be hot, nor does it mean the end of the world. Climate change means rising sea levels, that means land that is now occupied becomes uninhabitable. This will have an effect on water temperatures and ocean currents which affects the weather. What that means exactly we don’t know but we know that it means more unstable and unpredictable weather and more extreme weather events. Climate changes means warmer weather that has come about to quickly for lifeforms to adapt to. This means crops that many countries rely on either for food or income may no longer grow there. More droughts and floods means more starvation. The conflicts that may result because of scarcity is also something to consider. All of this things should happen within the next 100 years or so. But if we can slow carbon emissions enough, we may save ourselves from the worst of the effects of climate change and we buy ourselves time to figure out how we can reverse some of the damage that has already been done, or prepare for the inevitable if we can’t make a reversal.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Bryan is quoted in an article in The Independent on this. That article is linked near top of page of Drudge this morning.

Silly politics aside, investors want a much bigger chunk of the cash pile returned to them. What Cook really said between the lines is “if you don’t trust us to do better with all this idle cash than you would, don’t invest in AAPL.” That’s sort of the long term problem here Cookie, and why the stock price doesn’t reflect much value for all the tied up capital. The repatriation tax excuse has worn down to zero with investors. Carl Icahn will probably have the last laugh unless Apple can pivot to some amazing new, wildly profitable thing before fall.

Lee Dronick

  Silly politics aside, investors want a much bigger chunk of the cash pile
returned to them.

Some investors want that. Well not investors so much as vampires and vultures. Anyway for most of its corporate Apple did not pay dividends yet people still bought their stocks. If you want cash returned to you then sell your AAPL stocks when they are high.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Lee, Be sure to tell that to Carl Icahn as he buys more stock and continues to push the basic issue. The reason AAPL is lagging is that it has much more capital tied up than it should need to achieve the performance it does. The longer Apple management continues to do this, the more likely it might just end up raided for its cash.

Cameron L. Spitzer

NCPPR is a public relations and lobbying firm.  Their job is to deceive legislators and the public on behalf of a paying (sometimes anonymous) client.  This was obviously a publicity stunt.  Calling them a “think tank” is an insult to real think tanks.

wab95

Bryan:

I see this piece continues to stimulate comment, both true and oblique. Just dropped by to offer kudos on your citations around the net, including CNN Money on 01 March, where your article was referred to by Elmer-Dewitt as ‘telling it best’ and quoted almost in its entirety.

TMO continue to gain in stature and recognition for their analysis.

Well done.

jgderuvo

Maybe he’d prefer we sold our Apple products instead!  What an asshat.

Log-in to comment